Wednesday, March 31, 2010

I really enjoyed reading this article by Ramzy Baroud about his two daughters, and thought you might as well. An excerpt:

[I]n 2008, both Zarefah and Iman
voted for independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader. They were ten
and eight, so their votes didn't count. It was a mockup election at
their elementary school in the little town of Bothell in Washington
State. One of their teachers told me that she was "very surprised to see
how much support Nader has in our school." It was well beyond the
national average. In the same way the girls had urged everyone to save
the starfish of the South China Sea, they now relentlessly campaigned
for Ralph Nader among their peers. Their main argument was: Ralph Nader
has done so much work to save American lives, and both Obama and McCain
would enact policies that would take away many innocent lives - of
Americans and non-Americans alike. Unaware of the power of corporations
and the pro-Israel lobby, the classmates voted for Nader in droves. In
the end, the true American hero - at least as far as our family is
concerned - tied with McCain, but lost to Obama. Even children can be
swept by the "audacity of hope" fever. Now, like many of their parents,
they have probably realized what a folly that decision was. My kids
still say to their friends, "If only you voted Nader..."

And Baroud's core message, which is something everyone on the left should burn into their brains:

No, Zarefah and Iman don't take on lost causes.
And they don't take on easy causes either. They understand that to make a
difference one has to start somewhere, and this entails action at the
level of the individual - no matter how seemingly limited her or his
capacity.

Almost gives you hope for the future, doesn't it? Anyone who can raise children like this must be doing something right.

If you want to hear the story behind the starfish of the South China Sea (and who wouldn't?), by all means read the rest.

Monday, March 29, 2010

The lover's spat over Israel's colonies in Jerusalem continues, and now the gloves are really off:

The US is considering abstaining from a possible UN Security Council resolution against Israeli settlement expansion in East Jerusalem, the BBC has learned.

The possibility surfaced at talks in Paris last week between a senior US official and Qatar's foreign minister.

The official said the US would "seriously consider abstaining" if the issue of Israeli settlements was put to the vote, a diplomat told the BBC.

So the US is so so mad that it's seriously considering allowing other countries to issue an ineffectual condemnation of Israel through a marginalized international body, though it won't actually support that condemnation itself. Gosh, it's hard to imagine how much terror this must be inspiring in Tel Aviv, isn't it?

For reference (and just in case you're at all confused by Netanyahu et al's constant repetition of the talking point that everyone recognizes Israel's right to Jerusalem and everyone knows that Israel will retain its ever-expanding Jerusalem colonies in any final settlement), this is a quote from UN Security Council resolution 465:

The
Security Council, [...]

Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is
applicable to
the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, [...]

5. Determines that
all measures taken by Israel to change the physical
character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of
the
Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including
Jerusalem,
or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's
policy and
practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in
those
territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva
Convention
relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
and also
constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and
lasting
peace in the Middle East;

6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in
pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and
people
of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing
settlements and
in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment,
construction and
planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967,
including
Jerusalem;

(See also Security Council resolutions 446, 452, and 478 if you need more ammunition in the never-ending battle against Israel's army of liars, and you may also want to bookmark this outstanding reference—"The Background on Jerusalem in International Relations"—compiled by the American Task Force on Palestine.)

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm always happy on those vanishingly rare occasions when the US does the right thing at the United Nations, or at least doesn't prevent others from doing it. But we'll know the Obama administration is serious about all of this just as soon as they decide that the soft cushions and the comfy chair aren't enough, and move on to something that really will get Israel's attention—like, say, the closed wallet.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must
cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require
them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the "availability of coverage" for all until 2014.

William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and
insurance companies, said: "The fine print differs from the larger
political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover
pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does
not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the
insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost."

Of course, I'm also startled each time I see that sinister black doppelgänger following my every footstep whenever the sun is shining.

And by the same token, I'll no doubt be flabbergasted every time we're informed that "the fine print differs from the larger
political message" in the future when it comes to this bill.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Sure, you're probably disappointed in the health insurance bill. But you're not the only one:

Even the insurance industry is unhappy. Although the federal government will be requiring Americans to buy their products -- and providing subsidies worth billions -- insurers don't think the penalties are high enough.

Really puts our petty complaints into perspective, doesn't it?

AND: In case you're wondering:

Those who continue to go without coverage will have to pay a penalty to
the IRS, except in cases of financial hardship. Fines vary by income and
family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an
extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016.

That's 2.5% of this hypothetical single person's salary. For comparison purposes, UnitedHealth Group had 2009 revenues of $87 billion, so a corresponding penalty of 2.5% for its numerousmisdeeds would be roughly $2.2 billion. Which isn't high enough either, wouldn't you say? So you can see their point.

Friday, March 26, 2010

Following up on that last post, the cognitive dissonance over Obama's position on commercial whaling actually started just days after Obama was inaugurated, as you can see in this Washington Postarticle from January 25th, 2009:

The United States is initiating a closed-door negotiation that could
open up new areas to whale hunting for the first time in decades, part
of an attempt to end a long-standing impasse over whaling limits with
Japan, the world's most avid whaling nation.

The tentative plan, outlined in documents obtained by The Washington
Post, seeks to achieve a breakthrough in the dispute that has raged
since the International Whaling Commission voted in 1986 to ban
commercial whaling. Faced with the reality that Japan and its allies
have continued to hunt whales and have succeeded in blocking new
conservation efforts, commission Chairman William Hogarth -- an
appointee of President George W. Bush -- has been trying this weekend in
Hawaii to craft a pact that would permit a new type of "coastal
whaling" in exchange for a commitment by Japan to scale back its
"scientific" whale hunts.

Note the emphasis on the fact that Hogarth was appointed by Bush; apparently the reporter didn't want to tar the shiny new president with this unfortunate vestige of darker days. And she wasn't the only one:

Patrick Ramage, who directs the global whale program at the
International Fund for Animal Welfare, called the proposal "a lousy
idea." He added: "Declaring open season on Japan's coasts would have
grave implications for vulnerable whale stocks." [...] Ramage questioned why Hogarth would push such a controversial proposal
now that President Obama has taken office: "The Bush administration has
decided to wave the white flag on whaling and say, 'We can't end this,'
and we're saying, in the words of a certain presidential campaign, 'Yes,
we can.' "

Odd that Ramage would say "the Bush administration has decided to wave the white flag on whaling" in reference to actions that were taking place after Bush was nearly a week out of office, isn't it? And if you look here you'll see him saying "Apparently, the last lousy idea of the Bush Administration was to
legitimize commercial whaling in the 21st century. It's unbelievable, and fundamentally un-American." (I wonder if it's still fundamentally un-American now that it can't be pinned on a Republican?)

The answer to Ramage's question about why Hogarth would push such a controversial proposal after President Obama had taken office should have been apparent then, and it's certainly crystal clear now: because President Obama wanted him to. But as his "yes we can" illustrates, Ramage—like so many other liberals—was too mired in the spell of adulation cast by his future betrayer to be able to reach the most direct and obvious conclusion.

Unfortunately, even more than a year on, Occam's razor is no match for Obama's reality distortion field.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

The international ban on commercial whaling, which Greenpeace fought tirelessly to pass in the 1980’s, is now in critical danger of being overturned.

A proposal has been put forth at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) that would not only reinstate commercial whaling around the world, it would legitimize Japan's "scientific" slaughter in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Nearly 25 years of protection for the whales could be tossed out the window if this proposal passes at the next IWC meeting in June 2010.

Shockingly, the Obama administration’s representatives at the IWC actually support the deal to reinstate commercial whaling and are urging other nations to do the same. The delegates say that their directive comes directly from President Obama himself.

Got that? The directive comes directly from President Obama himself. I say again, the directive comes directly from President Obama himself. Let me just repeat that the directive comes directly from President Obama himself. We're clear on that, right? Because it will be important later. Ok, onward:

In light of this unexpected and deeply disturbing news, Greenpeace is gearing up for one of the biggest battles that the war against whaling has ever seen. This is an "all hands on deck" moment, to say the very least.

Never did I imagine that we would be defending the whales from President Obama - a man who inspired so much hope in our hearts for a green and peaceful future; a man who promised Greenpeace he would help strengthen the commercial whaling moratorium.

During the presidential race, then-Senator Obama gave this response to a Greenpeace questionnaire dated March 16, 2008: "As president, I will ensure that the U.S. provides leadership in enforcing international wildlife protection agreements, including strengthening the international moratorium on commercial whaling. Allowing Japan to continue commercial whaling is unacceptable."

If President Obama is serious about his commitment to protecting the whales, he must make sure that his delegation at the IWC opposes any deal that would reinstate commercial whaling. Instead, the U.S. should support a proposal recently made by Australia, which would leave the moratorium intact and finally put an end to Japan's bogus "scientific" slaughter in the Southern Ocean.

Greenpeace paid with our blood, sweat, and tears for the commercial whaling moratorium. We will not sit idly by and allow the Obama administration to overturn decades of hard work with one clumsy pen stroke. Please CLICK HERE to send a petition to the President and let him know you feel.

You recall that the directive comes directly from President Obama himself, right? Because it was apparently easy to forget, as Radford did halfway through his own letter when he asked "if President Obama is serious about his commitment to protecting the whales" and then chose the adjective "clumsy" for the pen stroke (as though Obama's imaginary hand just, you know, slipped or something).

Now, I get that it's often hard to believe in betrayal, even as you feel the knife slicing into your back; I really do. I'm sure we've all been through that kind of painful realization. Nonetheless, it takes a moment of serious cognitive dissonance to start out a letter noting that US delegates are acting on Barack Obama's direct orders, and then follow it up by asking if Obama is serious about his commitment to the exact opposite of what he's currently doing. It's at least good that Radford is learning an important lesson here; I'm just sorry that he and millions more like him have to learn it over and over and over again.

I do encourage you to follow Radford's request to CLICK THERE (though you'll probably want to replace the prepared text)—not because it has any chance of changing the outcome, but because I always feel there's intrinsic value in registering dissent.

[ More on Japan's totally scientific study of the delectability of whale populations here. ]

UPDATE: The cognitive dissonance on this topic actually started more than a year ago; see here for details.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

I'd have been ecstatic to be proven wrong about the size and makeup of anti-war protests in the wake of Obama's ascension, but the chance of that happening was approximately .0000002%:

The protest [in Washington on Saturday] drew a smaller crowd than the tens of thousands who marched
in 2006 and 2007. Protests in cities around the country also had far
fewer participants than in the past.

(Though it's not saying much, San Francisco seemed to have a similar number of people as other anti-war protests of recent years—mainly, I'd guess, because the organizers cannily increased the numbers by reaching out to striking San Francisco hotel workers and students protesting University of California tuition increases and budget cuts. The crowd otherwise was mostly the usual suspects, though, and there was a striking lack of Obama-critical signs.)

The article mentions that some people—though the only ones it names are Cindy Sheehan and Ralph
Nader—put the blame for our country's current atrocities squarely where it belongs: on the charming, intelligent Democrat whose finger is now on the trigger. But even among those who had the moral consistency to participate in this protest, there was some discomfort with that kind of talk:

Others were more conciliatory toward Obama. Shirley Allan of Silver
Spring, Md., carried a sign that read, "President Obama We love you but
we need to tell you! Your hands are getting bloody!! Stop it now."

Allan thought it was going too far to call Obama a war criminal but said
she is deeply disappointed that the conflicts are continuing.

On the one hand, good for Allan for taking the Metro down from Silver Spring and standing up for something that matters. On the other hand, "we love you"? "Disappointed"? And does she really think the blood on Obama's hands snuck there on its own, and he's somehow unaware of it? I also have to wonder if she'd have had any qualms about using the term "war criminal" for a Republican president who'd vastly increased the rate of drone attacks (and concomitant civilian killings) in Pakistan, escalated the assault on Afghanistan, killed over 120 people in cruise missile strikes in Yemen, and other similar atrocities.

I don't mean to be critical of Allan; she deserves credit for taking a stand, especially given how she feels about the new killer-in-chief. Nonetheless, this is a textbook example of the fog of Democratic war. The problem with Obama is that far too many people—even those willing to give up a Saturday afternoon to protest his wars—think of him as an ally who needs to be persuaded rather than an enemy who needs to be opposed. Yes, there's much in Obama's background (and self-promoting literary output) that suggests that beneath that cool, calculating exterior bleeds the heart of a true liberal, but nonetheless, no, he most certainly does not share your values—unless your values include extrajudicial executions, throwing bushels of money at the military, saying "the CIA gets what it needs", and blithely kissing your own children goodnight as you're vaporizing other people's kids thousands of miles away. Then he's your kind of guy.

The evidence for that already approached overwhelming levels before Obama was even inaugurated, and everything he's done since taking power has only added to it. But it doesn't even qualify as a prediction to say that the vast majority of liberals—including those who (to their credit) spent some time between 2001 and 2009 in the streets objecting to Bush and his wars—will avoid reaching that conclusion for, oh, approximately 34 (or god forbid, 82) more months.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

When I heard about Kucinich's flip-flop I was curious to see what Jane Hamsher would say about it (since she's worked so hard to defeat this bill), and I happened across this:

The thing I have learned above all else in this campaign is that the
corporate control of government is much more extensive than I ever
imagined, and the tools we have to fight its influence are ineffective.

Sounds hauntingly familiar, doesn't it? Yes, it's just one small step and it may lead nowhere, but I'm always happy to see anyone coming around.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Several entirely unexpected things happened today: the sun rose, the Earth continued spinning on its axis, the Globetrotters beat the Generals, and Dennis Kucinich submitted to the demands of his party superiors and personal ambition:

I joined with the Progressive Caucus saying that I would not support the
bill unless it had a strong public option and unless it protected the
right of people to pursue single payer at a state level. It did not. [...] I have decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation.

Now, I like Kucinich. Really I do. But the only question with the
guy isn't if he's going to fold, but when (and will it be a crane, or a fish, or a frog? Hey, cool, a panda this time!). As with the Iraq war platform plank sellout in 2004, so with the health care vote now.

Congressional Progressive Caucus members like Kucinich achieve nothing because their threats are empty, and everyone knows it. They achieve nothing because they're willing to risk nothing. They're taken for granted because they are in fact granted.

As with Progressive Democrats, so with progressives who vote for Democrats. Yes, they're angry about Iraq and Afghanistan and civil liberties and bailouts and drone strikes and health care and every other atrocity the Democrats sponsor or support, but it doesn't make a damn bit of difference, because everyone knows that no matter what happens they'll still dutifully vote for those same Democrats. And until the day comes when they finally decide there is some shit they will not eat, they'll continue to lose.

ADDING: In order to spare the jellyfish from Ohio further
embarrassment I omitted his claim that "I kept my pledge and voted
against the bill"—meaning the original bill, that is. What a kidder! For reference, Kucinich's pledge
said that in order to win his support, "any legislation that moves
forward through both chambers, and into a
final proposal for the President’s signature, MUST contain a public
option" (my bold, their caps). But "any" there was just one tiny little word in a big long letter, so you can see how he might not feel that it invalidates his claim.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Over the last year, Mr. Prime Minister [Netanyahu], you have taken significant steps including the moratorium that has limited new settlement construction activity.

...and when I got back I found out that in response, the Israelis bathed him in raw sewage by announcing a huge expansion of their colonies in East Jerusalem just hours after he said this, leading to a protracted kindergarten-style slap fight. Outstanding!

Any major conflict (in relative terms, that is) between the U.S. and Israel is bound to bring out the ideological commitments of major U.S. media outlets, and this one is no exception. Possibly the best example I've seen of this so far is a New York Timespage A1 article which achieves the seemingly impossible feat of packing five and a half lies into its opening sentence. Witness this historic effort with me:

An ill-timed municipal housing announcement in Jerusalem has mutated into one of the most serious conflicts between the United States and Israel in two decades, leaving a politically embarrassed Israeli government scrambling to respond to a tough list of demands by the Obama administration.

Did you spot them? Go ahead and look—I can wait.

Ok, let's count:

"ill-timed": This is the Times signing off on Israel's ludicrous contention that the scheduling of the announcement was just a huge coincidence; a more plausible choice would have been "exquisitely timed" (or if the Times wanted to maintain the fiction of objectivity, they could have just omitted the judgment altogether).

"municipal housing announcement": Arguably accurate in the same sense it would have been correct to call Hurricane Katrina "unusually windy weather."

"in Jerusalem": Occupied East Jerusalem, that is (as the U.N. Security Council, the U.S., and even Israel itself have all agreed).

"politically embarrassed": Pure invention, given that the Israelis immediately offered a pro forma apology for the timing of the incident (only), while reaffirming not only its particulars but their divine right to steal whatever land they want from whatever Untermenschen happen to be living on it. "Aggressively defiant" would be a more appropriate phrase.

"scrambling to respond": An attempt to buttress lie number 1 by portraying the Israelis as being caught entirely off guard by the response to their colonization plans, and therefore "scrambling" to find the right words to placate the angry U.S. In reality, of course, Israel's combination of meaningless procedural apologies combined with reaffirmation of the underlying decision has been delivered consistently from the first moment.

I also give the Times half credit for "a tough list of demands", since so far the Obama administration has essentially done no more than to reiterate the same things they've been saying for the past year. While these are arguably "tough demands" from the maximal Israeli perspective, one of them just involves rescinding an order that didn't even exist prior to last Tuesday, while the other the Times mentions ("substantive negotiations with the Palestinians") is something the Israelis had already agreed to—and of course "substantive negotiations" have regularly been used as a delaying tactic to allow Israel to steal more Palestinian land (including during Netanyahu's first term). And since there's no indication that the Obama administration is going to do anything more to enforce these demands than it has over the past year (as Israel has regularly thumbed its nose at them), "toothless" is the more accurate adjective.

There you have it: 5.5 lies in a single sentence. But given the demands Israel regularly places on its journalistic supporters, I'm sure the Times will manage to top even this impressive mark sooner or later.

ADDING: The record-setting sentence was co-authored by Ethan Bronner, whose son is an Israeli soldier. As Bronner said last month when confronted over the effect his son's Israeli military occupation (ha ha!) might have on his reporting:

"I wish to be judged by my work, not by my biography." He said he has been writing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for 27 years, and, "Either you are the kind of person whose intellectual independence and journalistic integrity can be trusted to do the work we do at The Times, or you are not."

I wrote at the time that I had no doubt Bronner could be trusted to do exactly the kind of work they regularly do at the Times, and I'm glad to see him living up to that expectation.

Monday, March 08, 2010

I'm skipping town for a few days again, but while I'm gone you might want to read this amusing bit by Naomi Klein:

According to [WSJ columnist Bret] Stephens, the radical free-market policies prescribed to Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet by Milton Friedman and his infamous "Chicago Boys" are the reason Chile is a prosperous nation with "some of the world’s strictest building codes."

There is one rather large problem with this theory: Chile’s modern seismic building code, drafted to resist earthquakes, was adopted in 1972. That year is enormously significant because it was one year before Pinochet seized power in a bloody U.S-backed coup. That means that if one person deserves credit for the law, it is not Friedman, or Pinochet, but Salvador Allende, Chile’s democratically elected socialist President. [...] The code was later updated in the nineties, well after Pinochet and the Chicago Boys were finally out of power and democracy was restored. Little wonder: As Paul Krugman points out, Friedman was ambivalent about building codes, seeing them as yet another infringement on capitalist freedom.

(Hilarious on so many levels, isn't it? It's a shame Milton Friedman can't speak to us from beyond the grave, since it'd be interesting to hear exactly which circle of hell he ended up in.)

Also on the topic of Latin America, the always-perspicacious Mark Weisbrot discusses the formation of a new regional organization independent of the U.S. and Canada and Matt Kennard explains a few of the many reasons to be excited about what's going on in Bolivia. As Kennard says, when I want to feel a little better about the world I just look at what's happening to the south—where people are emerging from decades of unimaginable horror funded and directed by the U.S., taking control of their lives, and demonstrating what real hope and change look like.

Saturday, March 06, 2010

Oh my, you don't look good at all. A little greenish. Stomach upset, maybe? Well, I know it's no fun, but you really do need to get it out of your system.

And I have just the thing to help you: Tikkun's Michael Lerner responding to Chris Hedges. Go ahead and read a bit—it shouldn't take more than a few paragraphs before nature takes its course. Here, let me hold your hair.

What? You need something even more powerful? Well, then, take a look at the declared purpose of Tikkun's summer conference: to "Support Obama to BE the Obama You Voted For".*

Oops, sorry—should have warned you to turn your head away from the screen before quoting that. But really, don't you feel better now?

ASTERISK: Compare with Hedges' critique of "useless liberals":

The only talent they seem to possess is the ability to write abject,
cloying letters to Barack Obama—as if he reads them—asking the
president to come back to his "true" self.

AND ALSO: If you click through on the link above you'll see that the photo accompanying Lerner's bloviations contains a nearly canonical example of a "shit-eating grin". Which makes perfect sense when you think about it, given the vast amounts of shit he's consuming.

Thursday, March 04, 2010

Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple.

You're such a good guy, Mr. President. [...] I don't know what your team has been up to, but they haven't served you
well. [...] Look, I don't know if Rahm is the problem or if it's
Gibbs or Axelrod or any of the other great people we owe a debt of thanks to
for getting you elected. All I know is that whatever is fueling your White
House it's now running on fumes. Time to shake things up! Time to bring me
in to get you pumped up every morning! Go Barack! Yay Obama!

And as for the topic at hand, it's now "The war in Afghanistan has escalated." Thank you, passive voice, for helping yet another person insulate himself from a reality too painful to bear.

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Just a few days after I mentioned PG&E and their most recent astroturf campaign (for proposition 16), I received a mailer from "Common Sense San Francisco"—aka the "Coalition for Reliable and Affordable Electricity"—an astroturf group PG&E used to defeat a public power proposition in San Francisco two years ago that they're reactivating now to stave off yet another perceived threat to their power monopoly. Check out these rock solid community credentials:

The Coalition for Reliable and Affordable Electricity is a nonprofit
that was formed in 2005. According to the organization's 2008 tax
returns, the most recent information available to the public, the
president of the organization is Dan Richard, PG&E's former senior
vice president for public policy and government relations. Also listed
as a director is Nancy McFadden, a senior vice president and senior
adviser to PG&E's CEO Peter Darbee. Steven S. Lucas is listed as
the coalition's principal officer. [...] Lucas, a partner in the Sacramento law firm of Nielsen, Merksamer,
Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, is also listed as treasurer of the
Yes on 16 political action committee.

All of which is just background for my favorite PG&E lie, which they repeat (mutatis mutandis) with reassuring regularity on each mailer they send out:

This information was provided by Coalition for Reliable and Affordable Electricity, a coalition of concerned consumers, small businesses, labor, community organizations and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

I always get the mental image of a group of "concerned consumers", "small businesses", "laborers", and "community organizations" getting together for a meeting to discuss ways to save themselves and their fellow citizens from the menace of public power, and someone suddenly saying, "Hey, who else should we invite to our coalition? I know—maybe Pacific Gas and Electric would be interested! Do you think we should ask them?" Which is no doubt why PG&E is listed last instead of first.

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

The timidity of the left exposes its cowardice, lack of a moral compass and mounting political impotence. The left stands for nothing. The damage Obama and the Democrats have done is immense. But the damage liberals do the longer they beg Obama and the Democrats for a few scraps is worse. It is time to walk out on the Democrats. It is time to back alternative third-party candidates and grass-roots movements, no matter how marginal such support may be. If we do not take a stand soon we must prepare for the rise of a frightening protofascist movement, one that is already gaining huge ground among the permanently unemployed, a frightened middle class and frustrated low-wage workers.

Hedges also understands that electoral politics shouldn't be treated as the engine of social change (a realization he shares with about .002% of voters-for-Democrats), but he makes the worthwhile point that allowing the Democratic Party to represent the public face of the left in this country undermines the ability to achieve that change:

Social change does not come through voting. It is delivered through activism, organizing and mobilization that empower groups to confront the hegemony of the corporate state and the power elite. The longer socialism is identified with the corporatist policies of the Democratic Party, the longer we allow the right wing to tag Obama as a socialist, the more absurd and ineffectual we become. [...] The hypocrisy and ineptitude of the Democrats become, in the eyes of the wider public, the hypocrisy and ineptitude of the liberal class. We can continue to tie our own hands and bind our own feet or we can break free, endure the inevitable opprobrium, and fight back. This means refusing to support the Democrats.